Thread: Barack Obama's citizenship questioned

[size=117]Sample letter to US Atty Jeffrey Taylor: revise it as you will, and then mail it to him.
____________________________________________

Jeffrey A. Taylor, United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530

cc: Eric H. Holder, U.S. Attorney General

Dear Mr. Taylor,

I write to alert you to the brewing danger to active members of our military who have joined lawsuits challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama as Commander in Chief. I request that you take appropriate action to protect our military from court martial proceedings, possible simply because it has not been established whether or not Barack Obama II meets the "natural born citizen" requirement for the Presidency in the U.S. Constitution, Art. II, § 1.

Can you say with absolute certainty that Mr. Obama is a “natural born citizen?" When the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1787, the common understanding of international law came from The Law of Nations, by Emmerich de Vattel (175. He explained that “natural born citizensâ€

My letter is a bit simpler, does not include much in the way of legal argument, and provides my support statement for the quo warranto action. I plagiarized some of Donofrio's letter to Jeffrey Taylor.

===========

Date: May 23, 2009

Attorney General Eric Holder
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Subject: Quo Warranto: Is Obama eligible to be POTUS?

Dear Mr. Holder:

I am sure you are well aware of the numerous law suits which challenged President Obama as to whether he was a natural born citizen of the United States. I write to convince you that having President Obama’s title to office cleared of all doubt is in the best interest of the nation at large and specifically the military chain of command.

Since you are listed in 16-3502 as one of only two people who may institute a proceeding - upon their own motion - in quo warranto to investigate any United States public office holder’s qualifications if the office concerned is within the District of Columbia. I respectfully request that you bring such an action before the District Court for the District of Columbia as soon as possible.

As I’m certain you know, the Code provides - at 16-3544 - for a jury trial. I respectfully submit that this is the best possible way to settle the fact issue as to whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. As to the legal issue of whether he is a natural born citizen, even if born in Hawaii, the Judicial branch has been charged with the power to interpret exactly what those words mean.

The most important aspect of current legal research, as it may affect your decision to act, comes from the seminal US Supreme Court decision that interpreted the District of Columbia quo warranto statute, Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 at 546 (1915) wherein the court stated:

“The District Code… permits those proceedings to be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States and by the attorney for the District of Columbia. By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper.â€

This would be my letter to Jeffrey Taylor, similar to my Holder letter, but with a few text changes.

================

Date: May 23, 2009

U.S. Attorney Jeffrey A. Taylor
Judiciary Center Building
555 Fourth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530

Subject: Quo Warranto: Is Obama eligible to be POTUS?

Dear U.S. Attorney Taylor:

I am sure you are well aware of the numerous law suits which challenged President Obama as to whether he was a natural born citizen of the United States. I write to convince you that having President Obama’s title to office cleared of all doubt is in the best interest of the nation at large and specifically the military chain of command.

Since you are the main law enforcement officer charged with enforcing the District of Columbia Code, and since you are listed in 16-3502 as one of only two people who may institute a proceeding - upon their own motion - in quo warranto to investigate any United States public office holder’s qualifications if the office concerned is within the District of Columbia. I respectfully request that you bring such an action before the District Court for the District of Columbia as soon as possible.

As I’m certain you know, the Code provides - at 16-3544 - for a jury trial. I respectfully submit that this is the best possible way to settle the fact issue as to whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. As to the legal issue of whether he is a natural born citizen, even if born in Hawaii, the Judicial branch has been charged with the power to interpret exactly what those words mean.

The most important aspect of current legal research, as it may affect your decision to act, comes from the seminal US Supreme Court decision that interpreted the District of Columbia quo warranto statute, Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537 at 546 (1915) wherein the court stated:

“The District Code… permits those proceedings to be instituted by the Attorney General of the United States and by the attorney for the District of Columbia. By virtue of their position, they, at their discretion and acting under the sense of official responsibility, can institute such proceedings in any case they deem proper.â€

BORN IN THE USA?

Grand juries cite Obama for ineligibility, treason

Hundreds of 'presentments' being handed to prosecutors

Posted: May 21, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Hundreds of "presentments" – or accusations assembled by citizen grand juries – are scheduled to be given to courts, sheriffs, prosecutors, judges and legislators across the United States by July 4 alleging that Barack Obama is ineligible to be president and his occupancy in the Oval Office constitutes treason.

The accusations are being assembled by the citizen grand juries that have been meeting in recent weeks around the country. One organization, American Grand Jury, now has posted an online procedure that provides a step-by-step instruction manual for those who are concerned about Obama.

American Grand Jury Editor Bob Campbell's site includes information on the history of grand juries, their powers, rules, evidence, forms, etiquette and how to file the resulting claims.

While there are other groups organizing and holding grand jury meetings, Campbell told WND that his is the largest group, having convened five already along with two state grand juries. It plans to sponsor another half dozen in the next 30 days.

Where's the proof Barack Obama was born in the U.S. or that he fulfills the "natural-born American" clause in the Constitution? If you still want to see it, join more than 370,000 others and sign up now!

"Sooner or later some court or many courts will formally indict Obama from our presentments or [a] complaint," he said. "Our goal is to convene and conclude 12 to 13 grand juries before July 4 rolls around and to serve our presentments as many as 200 times with courts, sheriffs, prosecutors, judges or legislators across the land.

"The pressure is mounting and someday justice will be served or the country will probably explode from loss of faith in our Constitution," he said.

If those numbers don't produce action, he said, the plans are to double, or triple the numbers, and try again.

One such citizens grand jury met recently in a Chicago suburb, literally in Obama's home territory. There spokesman Richard Keefner told WND, jurors were sworn in, reviewed the evidence and deliberated.

"We all came to a unanimous decision that we felt it should be investigated further and warranted the indictment," he told WND.

The citizens grand jury is just the latest channel through which Americans are raising protests over a president they believe is ineligible to hold that office.

Many of the challenges have come through the courts. WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama's status as a "natural born citizen." The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama's American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama's citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Further, others question his citizenship by virtue of his attendance in Indonesian schools during his childhood and question on what passport did he travel to Pakistan three decades ago.

Adding fuel to the fire is Obama's persistent refusal to release documents that could provide answers and the appointment of myriad lawyers to defend against all requests for his documentation. While his supporters cite an online version of a "Certification of Live Birth" from Hawaii as his birth verification, critics point out such documents actually were issued for children not born in the state.

Get the new Whistleblower magazine, called "YOUR PAPERS, PLEASE? Why dozens of lawsuits and millions of Americans want Barack Obama to prove he's constitutionally qualified to be president."

The ultimate questions remain unaddressed to date: Is Obama a natural born citizen, and, if so, why hasn't documentation been provided? And, of course, if he is not, what does it mean to the 2008 election or the U.S. Constitution if it is revealed that there has been a violation?

And the answer could take only minutes: authorization from the president to Hawaiian officials to release his documentation.

A recent presentment from one of the American Grand Jury meetings said there's not even any question about Obama's eligibility any longer.

"Article II, Section 1 states: 'No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the Untied States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…" says Count One.

"Wherefore, Obama is not a 'natural born Citizen' for the following reasons: 1) Obama was NOT born of mother and father who were BOTH US Citizens. These facts are not in dispute: Under the British Nationality Act 1948, Obama's father was a British citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of Kenya. Obama's father continued to be such and not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born in 1961. Under the same BNA 1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama also became a British citizen/subject by descent from his British father," the charge continues.

"It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen and that at that time he himself also became such. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama's father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject," it says.

Secondly, the accusation of treason comes from a retired member of the U.S. military officer, Lt. Cmdr. Walter Fitzpatrick III, who has presented his complaint to U.S. Attorney Russell Dedrick in Tennessee, the presentment explains.

In that, he alleged, "Now you [Obama] have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, dissembling, and deceit. Posing as an impostor president and commander in chief you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment. Known military criminal actors-command racketeers-are now free in the exercise of military government intent upon destruction of America's constitutional government. We come now to this reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works."

The American Grand Jury website explained it is clear the U.S. Constitution "intended to give the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight."

Campbell explained the citizens grand juries are a constitutional movement.

"We endeavor to teach people about our Constitutional rights, first and foremost. Amendment 1: the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances – Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury," he said.

"A constitutional grand jury actually hands down 'presentments.' That is the correct term. Indictment is a proper term for a court or judicial grand jury to use. Presentments are charges," he said.

To those who say such meetings are ineffectual and lack impact, Campbell said they do not understand the Constitution.

"Any time you assemble real people to conduct a hearing such as grand jury there are those that are afraid we would speak the truth so they in fact will deny we are effective or our actions mean nothing," he said.

Such grand juries, he said, in fact, "are the fourth branch of government."

"Would we like to see more attorneys with integrity and credibility truly give credence to the Constitution and offer good suggestions on how to get the courts to act? The answer is yes! Will they – I would say NO! Attorneys and judges do not want the average person questioning how they dictate the system that keeps them in power," Campbell said.

"Will we prevail? The answer is we had better or the United States of America as we know it will soon be nothing more than a thing of the past. The Founding Fathers were brilliant in how they put the Constitution together. It was truly God-inspired. I choose to believe there are enough people out there that want to save our Republic and maintain the USA as the true beacon of light and freedom that she so truly is," he said.

According to the grand jury website, "Sooner or later the court system is going to be inundated with 'presentments' against Obama. Sooner or later public sentiment is going to demand these courts act and force Obama to answer to the charnges."

While an Obama spokesman one time called the allegations "garbage," the president and his team have withheld other comments. But here is a partial listing and status update for some of the cases over Obama's eligibility:

* New Jersey attorney Mario Apuzzo has filed a case on behalf of Charles Kerchner and others alleging Congress didn't properly ascertain that Obama is qualified to hold the office of president.

* Pennsylvania Democrat Philip Berg has three cases pending, including Berg vs. Obama in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a separate Berg vs. Obama which is under seal at the U.S. District Court level and Hollister vs. Soetoro a/k/a Obama, (now dismissed) brought on behalf of a retired military member who could be facing recall to active duty by Obama.

* Leo Donofrio of New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court but denied a full hearing.

* Cort Wrotnowski filed suit against Connecticut's secretary of state, making a similar argument to Donofrio. His case was considered in conference by the U.S. Supreme Court, but was denied a full hearing.

* Former presidential candidate Alan Keyes headlines a list of people filing a suit in California, in a case handled by the United States Justice Foundation, that asks the secretary of state to refuse to allow the state's 55 Electoral College votes to be cast in the 2008 presidential election until Obama verifies his eligibility to hold the office. The case is pending, and lawyers are seeking the public's support.

* Chicago lawyer Andy Martin sought legal action requiring Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle to release Obama's vital statistics record. The case was dismissed by Hawaii Circuit Court Judge Bert Ayabe.

* Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan sought a temporary restraining order to stop the Electoral College vote in North Carolina until Barack Obama's eligibility could be confirmed, alleging doubt about Obama's citizenship. His case was denied.

* In Ohio, David M. Neal sued to force the secretary of state to request documents from the Federal Elections Commission, the Democratic National Committee, the Ohio Democratic Party and Obama to show the presidential candidate was born in Hawaii. The case was denied.

* Also in Ohio, there was the Greenberg v. Brunner case which ended when the judge threatened to assess all case costs against the plaintiff.

* In Washington state, Steven Marquis sued the secretary of state seeking a determination on Obama's citizenship. The case was denied.

* In Georgia, Rev. Tom Terry asked the state Supreme Court to authenticate Obama's birth certificate. His request for an injunction against Georgia's secretary of state was denied by Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter.

* California attorney Orly Taitz has brought a case, Lightfoot vs. Bowen, on behalf of Gail Lightfoot, the vice presidential candidate on the ballot with Ron Paul, four electors and two registered voters. She also has brought forward several other cases and has conducted several public campaigns to generate awareness of the issue.

In addition, other cases cited on the RightSideofLife blog as raising questions about Obama's eligibility include:

* In Texas, Darrel Hunter vs. Obama later was dismissed.

* In Ohio, Gordon Stamper vs. U.S. later was dismissed.

* In Texas, Brockhausen vs. Andrade.

* In Washington, L. Charles Cohen vs. Obama.

* In Hawaii, Keyes vs. Lingle, dismissed.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=98697

Found the below post on WND and thought it is worth posting.

A VERY DANGEROUS STEALTH BILL
Posted by Horizon3 on May 23, 2009 22:02

THESE IDIOTS ARE DOING IT AGAIN !!!! WHILE WE WERE DISTRACTED WITH PELOSI THEY ARE SNEAKING A VERY DANGEROUS BILL THROUGH

Please tell your senators to vote NO on HR 985. This bill is "stealth legislation" and will protect the president from disclosing his ties to fraudulent real estate transactions, providing his birth certificate to prove he meets the citizenship requirements for office of the President as stated in the Constitution, and if passed, will protect others in his administration from disclosure of concealed transactions between government and businesses such as House Speaker Pelosi's dealings with her husbands interest in Dole Foods and off-shore labor activities. If this stealth legislation continues to be passed virtually unnoticed, it won't be long before any of the State courts would be rendered useless against getting information from agencies having records involving the president, his administration, Congress, or their staff.

This is some serious stuff - please call, write, e-mail, fax to stop this!

LINK TO THE BILL
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... fs.txt.pdf

!!!GET THIS GOING VIRAL NOW!!!

http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=235




H.R.985
Title: To amend title 5, United States Code, to clarify which disclosures of information are protected from prohibited personnel practices; to require a statement in nondisclosure policies, forms, and agreements to the effect that such policies, forms, and agreements are consistent with certain disclosure protections, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] (introduced 2/12/2007) Cosponsors (29)
Related Bills: H.RES.239
Latest Major Action: 6/6/2007 Referred to Senate subcommittee. Status: Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs referred to Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia.
House Reports: 110-42 Part 1, 110-42 Part 2SUMMARY AS OF:
3/14/2007--Passed House amended. (There is 1 other summary)

Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2007 - (Sec. 2) Expands the types of whistleblower disclosures protected from personnel reprisals to include disclosures without restriction as to time, place, form, motive, context, forum, or prior disclosures made to any person by an employee or applicant for employment, including a disclosure made in the ordinary course of an employee's duties, that the employee or applicant reasonably believes is a violation of any law.

(Sec. 3) Defines "disclosure" as a formal or informal communication, not including a communication concerning policy decisions that lawfully exercise discretionary authority unless the employee providing the disclosure reasonably believes that it evidences: (1) any violation of law; or (2) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.

Defines "clear and convincing evidence" as evidence indicating that the matter to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain, for purposes of Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) reviews of prohibited personnel practices.

(Sec. 4) Provides that any presumption relating to the performance of a duty by an employee with personnel authority may be rebutted by substantial evidence.

Codifies the legal standard (i.e., disinterested observer with knowledge of the essential facts) for determining whether an employee or applicant for employment has a reasonable belief of the validity of their whistleblower disclosures.

(Sec. 5) Includes as a prohibited personnel practice the implementation or enforcement of any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement.

Prohibits any agency from: (1) implementing or enforcing any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement if it does not contain a specified statement of employee rights and obligations; or (2) conducting an investigation (other than that necessary to the agency's mission) of an employee or applicant for employment because of any protected whistleblower activity.

(Sec. 6) Includes as an agency exempt from whistleblower restrictions the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Requires the removal of any agency or unit by the President from whistleblower protection coverage to be made before any personnel action is taken against a whistleblower at that agency.

(Sec. 7) Expands the authority of the MSPB to discipline an employee who takes adverse personnel action against a whistleblower if it finds that the protected activity was the primary motivating factor in such employee's action.

(Sec. Directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study on certain security clearance revocations and to report to Congress on such study.

(Sec. 9) Allows an employee, former employee, or applicant for employment who seeks corrective action from the MSPB for an alleged prohibited personnel practice to bring legal action in federal district court for de novo review and seek a jury trial, if the MSPB fails to issue a timely final order or decision.

Allows the MSPB to award interest and reasonable expert witness fees as compensatory damages.

(Sec. 10) Prohibits adverse personnel actions against an employee of a covered national security agency (i.e., Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, and any other executive branch agency determined by the President to have as its principal function the conduct of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities) for making whistleblower disclosures to an authorized Member of Congress or executive branch official or to the Inspector General of the covered agency that employs the whistleblower.

Requires: (1) the Inspector General to investigate any claim of adverse personnel actions against an employee of a covered agency; and (2) the head of such agency to make a determination of whether a prohibited personnel practice has taken place and take corrective action.

Authorizes a whistleblower to seek judicial review of an adverse determination by an agency head.

(Sec. 11) Requires the head of a civilian executive agency, within 180 days of an employee complaint, to determine whether a private contractor has subjected an employee whistleblower to a reprisal and to either issue an order denying relief or take corrective action. Allows such employee whistleblower to request a jury trial in a federal district court and seek compensatory damages if the agency head does not issue an order or take corrective action.

(Sec. 12) Extends federal whistleblower protections to individuals holding or applying for a position in the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

(Sec. 13) Modifies the definition of "abuse of authority" with respect to prohibited personnel practices against a whistleblower relating to scientific and other research to include: (1) any action that compromises the validity or accuracy of federally funded research or analysis; (2) the dissemination of false or misleading scientific, medical, or technical information; (3) any action that restricts or prevents publication of scientific material; and (4) any action that discriminates for or against any employee or applicant on the basis of religion (as defined in this Act).

(Sec. 14) Makes the provisions of this Act effective 30 days after enactment (except for TSA employee whistleblower provisions which are effective immediately upon enactment).

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... D&summ2=m&

BORN IN THE USA?

Revealed: 'The Obama birth certificate protection act'?

Bill would prohibit compelling executive branch from releasing documents

Posted: May 24, 2009
9:12 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Barack Obama, the man elected president

WASHINGTON – A bill approved by the House of Representatives and referred to the Senate would prohibit federal employees of executive branch from being compelled to release any document unless a court makes a specified determination by a preponderance of evidence – legislation at least one group suspects is designed to protect Barack Obama's elusive birth certificate from release.

The legislation, HR 985, resides in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sovereignty Alliance has issued a "red alert" about the bill it calls "stealth legislation ... to protect Obama from providing his birth certificate."

"It wouldn't surprise me a bit if this were one of the intended consequences of this legislation," said Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, who last week initiated a national billboard campaign to bring attention to the issue of Obama's missing birth certificate and what it might say about his claim to be a "natural born citizen," a status necessary to serving in the White House.

"In any case, this bill puts the lie to this administration and this Congress being the most ethical and transparent in American history," Farah said. "They're very open when it comes to the secrets of previous administrations, but when it comes to their own work, it is shrouded in secrecy. Even the president's birth certificate and student records are well-guarded state secrets."

Farah launched a petition campaign several months ago that has collected nearly 400,000 names of Americans demanding answers as to Obama's eligibility. Last week he called for financial support of a new campaign to erect billboards around the country asking the simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

In just five days, the billboard campaign has been backed by about $45,000 in donations.

Likewise, Farah points out, the nearly 400,000 petitioners represents more people than live in any of the following U.S. cities:

* St. Louis, Missouri

* Tampa, Florida

* Anaheim, California

* Cincinnati, Ohio

* Toledo, Ohio

* Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

* New Orleans, Louisiana

* Newark, New Jersey

* Birmingham, Alabama

* Madison, Wisconsin

* Orlando, Florida

* Reno, Nevada

* Richmond, Virginia

* Des Moines, Iowa

* Little Rock, Arkansas

* Fort Lauderdale, Florida

* Salt Lake City, Utah

* Providence, Rhode Island

* Kansas City, Kansas

* Hartford, Connecticut

* Springfield, Illinois

* Berkeley, California

* Green Bay, Wisconsin

Both efforts are part of what Farah calls an independent "truth and transparency campaign."

The money is being used to erect billboards around the country that ask a simple question: "Where's the birth certificate?"

The first such sign to be posted under the 5-day-old campaign, a digital, electronic one, is up and online on Highway 165 in Ball, La. – the result of a donation by the owner. In addition, based on the heavy volume of financial donations in the first two days of the campaign, WND was able to commit to leasing two more standard billboards – one in Los Angeles and the other in Pennsylvania. It will take several weeks to get those billboards up because of the vinyl printing and shipping involved.

Birth certificate question being raised in Ball, La.

The "Certification of Live Birth" posted online and widely touted as "Obama's birth certificate" does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same "short-form" document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true "long-form" birth certificate – which includes information like the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

"I know now, because of the sensational response to this idea from WND viewers, that this national campaign is going to be big and long-lasting," said Farah. "I want to thank all of those who have pitched in and contributed – with either cash donations or, in some cases, space donations. But the need for money continues."

While the campaign is off to a great start, many viewers have asked why Obama's name is not included in the billboard. Farah said the matter was carefully considered.

"There are several reasons we chose the message: 'Where's the birth certificate?'" he explained. "There is only one birth certificate controversy in this country today – despite the near-total absence of this issue from coverage in the non-WND media. This is a grass-roots issue that resonates around the country, as our own online petition with nearly 400,000 signers suggests. In addition, I like the simplicity of the message. I like the fact that the message will cause some people to ask themselves or others about the meaning of the message. It will stir curiosity. It will create a buzz. I'm assuming when these billboards are springing up all over the country, it might even make some in the news media curious. And there's one more factor that persuaded me this was the way to go.

"Come 2012, campaign laws will pose restrictions on political advertising mentioning the names of presidential candidates. This one clearly doesn't. I would like to see the federal government make the case that this is somehow a political ad," he said.

Farah said the campaign was born of frustration with timid elected officials in Washington, corrupt judges around the country and a news media that show a stunning lack of curiosity about the most basic facts of Obama's background – especially how it relates to constitutional eligibility for the highest office in the land.

"As Obama transforms this country from self-governing constitutional republic to one governed by a central ruling elite, the simple fact remains that no controlling legal authority has established that he is indeed a 'natural born citizen' as the Constitution requires," Farah said. "Obama's promises of transparency have become a bad joke as he continues to hide simple, innocuous documents like his birth certificate and his student records."

The idea behind the billboard campaign is to make sure Obama cannot avoid this question any longer. He must be asked to produce it at every turn, Farah says. Billboard space is currently being hunted in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Sacramento, San Francisco, New York-New Jersey, Des Moines, Seattle and other metro areas.

Farah said another early target for the campaign would be billboards in Honolulu – allegedly Obama's birthplace.

"Is it unusual for a news agency to launch such a campaign?" asks Farah. "Yes it is. But we live in very unusual times. The founding fathers built special protections into the First Amendment for the free press. The reason they did that is because they understood a vibrant 'Fourth Estate' was necessary as an independent watchdog on government. It is in that tradition that WND assumes this role – since nobody else in the press will do it."

WND previously launched a petition campaign that has collected more than 370,000 names demanding Obama's eligibility be verified and demonstrated publicly. That campaign continues. That list has been shared with members of the Electoral College and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I wish such a campaign were not absolutely necessary," said Farah. "I wish there were checks and balances in our political and electoral systems to ensure that constitutional eligibility of presidential candidates was established before politicians could assume the highest office in the land. I wish my colleagues in the news media believed the Constitution really means what it says and pressed this issue as hard as we have pressed it at WND. I wish radio talk-show hosts were bold enough to ask this question. But wishing is not enough. It's time to raise the visibility of this issue vital to the rule of law in America. I ask everyone to pitch in and help WND make a simple yet profound statement: The Constitution still matters."

Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing "billboard" on the check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=99107

Originally Posted by WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – A bill approved by the House of Representatives and referred to the Senate would prohibit federal employees of executive branch from being compelled to release any document unless a court makes a specified determination by a preponderance of evidence – legislation at least one group suspects is designed to protect Barack Obama's elusive birth certificate from release.

The legislation, HR 985, resides in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sovereignty Alliance has issued a "red alert" about the bill it calls "stealth legislation ... to protect Obama from providing his birth certificate."

Someone please help me here. I may not be the brightest bulb in the box; I may be losing brain cells at an alarming rate. But I have read HR 985 as listed, and regulations to prevent snooping and protect whistleblowers are all that I see.

HR 985 would require a court order for any Federal investigation. Except with a court order, a Federal investigator could not compel a covered person to provide testimony or documentation of information obtained or created by such covered person in the course of preparing and publishing, to the public, news of events or matters of public interest. That, it seems to me, is nothing more than the Amendment IV protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Where in HR 985 (below) is the offending text?
__________________________________
IIB
111TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 985
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
APRIL 1, 2009
Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
AN ACT
To maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Free Flow of Information Act of 2009’’.

SEC. 2. COMPELLED DISCLOSURE FROM COVERED PERSONS.

(a) CONDITIONS FOR COMPELLED DISCLOSURE.—In any matter arising under Federal law, a Federal entity may not compel a covered person to provide testimony or produce any document related to information obtained or created by such covered person as part of engaging in journalism, unless a court determines by a preponderance of the evidence, after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to such covered person—
(1) that the party seeking to compel production of such testimony or document has exhausted all reasonable alternative sources (other than the covered person) of the testimony or document;
(2) that—
(A) in a criminal investigation or prosecution, based on information obtained from a person other than the covered person—
(i) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has occurred; and
(ii) the testimony or document sought is critical to the investigation or prosecution or to the defense against the prosecution; or
(B) in a matter other than a criminal investigation or prosecution, based on information obtained from a person other than the covered person, the testimony or document sought is critical to the successful completion of the matter;
(3) in the case that the testimony or document sought could reveal the identity of a source of information or include any information that could reasonably be expected to lead to the discovery of the identity of such a source, that—
(A) disclosure of the identity of such a source is necessary to prevent, or to identify any perpetrator of, an act of terrorism against the United States or its allies or other significant and specified harm to national security with the objective to prevent such harm;
(B) disclosure of the identity of such a source is necessary to prevent imminent death or significant bodily harm with the objective to prevent such death or harm, respectively;
(C) disclosure of the identity of such a source is necessary to identify a person who has disclosed—
(i) a trade secret, actionable under section 1831 or 1832 of title 18, United States Code;
(ii) individually identifiable health information, as such term is defined in section 1171(6) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d(6)), actionable under Federal law; or
(iii) nonpublic personal information, as such term is defined in section 509(4) of the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act (15 U.S.C. 15 6809(4)), of any consumer actionable under Federal law; or
(D)(i) disclosure of the identity of such a source is essential to identify in a criminal investigation or prosecution a person who without authorization disclosed properly classified information and who at the time of such disclosure had authorized access to such information; and (ii) such unauthorized disclosure has caused or will cause significant and articulable harm to the national security; and
(4) that the public interest in compelling disclosure of the information or document involved outweighs the public interest in gathering or disseminating news or information.

(b) AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST.
—For purposes of making a determination under subsection (a)(4), a court may consider the extent of any harm to national security.

(c) LIMITATIONS ON CONTENT OF INFORMATION.—
The content of any testimony or document that is compelled under subsection (a) shall—
(1) not be overbroad, unreasonable, or oppressive and, as appropriate, be limited to the purpose of verifying published information or describing any surrounding circumstances relevant to the accuracy of such published information; and
(2) be narrowly tailored in subject matter and period of time covered so as to avoid compelling production of peripheral, nonessential, or speculative information.

(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed as applying to civil defamation, slander, or libel claims or defenses under State law, regardless of whether or not such claims or defenses, respectively, are raised in a State or Federal court.

(e) EXCEPTION RELATING TO CRIMINAL OR TORTIOUS CONDUCT.
—The provisions of this section shall not prohibit or otherwise limit a Federal entity in any matter arising under Federal law from compelling a covered person to disclose any information, record, document,
or item obtained as the result of the eyewitness observation by the covered person of alleged criminal conduct or as the result of the commission of alleged criminal or tortious conduct by the covered person, including any physical evidence or visual or audio recording of the conduct, if a Federal court determines that the party seeking to compel such disclosure has exhausted all other reasonable efforts to obtain the information, record, document, or item, respectively, from alternative sources. The previous sentence shall not apply, and subsections (a) and (b) shall apply, in the case that the alleged criminal conduct observed by the covered person or the alleged criminal or tortious conduct committed by the covered person is the act of transmitting or communicating the information, record, document, or item sought for disclosure.

SEC. 3. COMPELLED DISCLOSURE FROM COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDERS.

(a) CONDITIONS FOR COMPELLED DISCLOSURE.—
With respect to testimony or any document consisting of any record, information, or other communication that relates to a business transaction between a communications service provider and a covered person, section 2 shall apply to such testimony or document if sought from the communications service provider in the same manner that such section applies to any testimony or document sought from
a covered person.

(b) NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED TO COVERED PERSONS.—A court may compel the testimony or disclosure of a document under this section only after the party seeking such a document provides the covered person who is a party to the business transaction described
in subsection (a)—
(1) notice of the subpoena or other compulsory request for such testimony or disclosure from the communications service provider not later than the time at which such subpoena or request is issued to the communications service provider; and
(2) an opportunity to be heard before the court before the time at which the testimony or disclosure is compelled.

(c) EXCEPTION TO NOTICE REQUIREMENT.—Notice under subsection (b)(1) may be delayed only if the court involved determines by clear and convincing evidence that such notice would pose a substantial threat to the integrity of a criminal investigation.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:

(1) COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDER.—
The term ‘‘communications service provider’’—
(A) means any person that transmits information of the customer’s choosing by electronic means; and
(B) includes a telecommunications carrier, an information service provider, an interactive computer service provider, and an information
content provider (as such terms are defined in sections 3 and 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 153, 230)).

(2) COVERED PERSON.—The term ‘‘covered person’’ means a person who regularly gathers, prepares, collects, photographs, records, writes, edits, reports, or publishes news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public for a substantial portion of the person’s livelihood or for substantial financial gain and includes a supervisor, employer, parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of such covered person. Such term shall not include—
(A) any person who is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, as such terms are defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801);
(B) any organization designated by the Secretary of State as a foreign terrorist organization in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.1189);
(C) any person included on the Annex to Executive Order No. 13224, of September 23, 2001, and any other person identified under section 1 of that Executive order whose property and interests in property are blocked by that section;
(D) any person who is a specially designated terrorist, as that term is defined in section 595.311 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations (or any successor thereto); or
(E) any terrorist organization, as that term is defined in section 212(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(B)(vi)(II)).

(3) DOCUMENT.—The term ‘‘document’’ means writings, recordings, and photographs, as those terms are defined by Federal Rule of Evidence 1001 (28 U.S.C. App.).

(4) FEDERAL ENTITY.—The term ‘‘Federal entity’’ means an entity or employee of the judicial or executive branch or an administrative agency of the Federal Government with the power to issue a subpoena or issue other compulsory process.

(5) JOURNALISM.—The term ‘‘journalism’’ means the gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.

Passed the House of Representatives March 31, 2009.
Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, Clerk.

All of us on in Alipac have been concerned about Obama's administration, which from the evidence we have seen, is based on fraud & deceit and is absolutely destroying our American way of life in favor of a totalitarian Marxist regime. I believe we are all concerned American citizens.

Read the following article in Pravda only if you really want to get pi$$ed off or depressed - it can go either way:

====================

American capitalism gone with a whimper

Source: Pravda.Ru 27.04.2009
Stanislav Mishin e-mail: stas.mishin71@gmail.com
URL: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper... but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.

Stanislav Mishin e-mail: stas.mishin71@gmail.com

The article has been reprinted with the kind permission from the author and originally appears on his blog, Mat Rodina

© 1999-2009. «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/107459-0/

====================

HJ Notes:

Within our American government, in all three branches, employees and elected representatives who know the truth about Obama, have all sworn an oath to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution.

So I'm sitting here wondering what's going on with our lawful government employees and representatives who work within our government, and why haven't they blown the whistle or revolted or otherwise helped us shake off the un-Constitutional Marxist regime that is now running our country.

Think about it. Where ARE our loyal American government employees (besides our military, who actually have the cajones to speak up), and why don't we hear from them en masse? Or even singly? Is getting our government back on track as a legal and constitutional republic going to rely on only the military and on private American citizens? Do we really have to rebel again?

Today we are honoring our fallen military heroes - men and women who gave their lives to protect and defend our free republic of America - and I ask you if our acceptance and our government's acceptance of, and toleration of, the Marxist regime running our country, is how we thank our fallen military?

What say you?

Originally Posted by MinutemanCDC_SC

Originally Posted by WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – A bill approved by the House of Representatives and referred to the Senate would prohibit federal employees of executive branch from being compelled to release any document unless a court makes a specified determination by a preponderance of evidence – legislation at least one group suspects is designed to protect Barack Obama's elusive birth certificate from release.

The legislation, HR 985, resides in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sovereignty Alliance has issued a "red alert" about the bill it calls "stealth legislation ... to protect Obama from providing his birth certificate."

Someone please help me here. I may not be the brightest bulb in the box; I may be losing brain cells at an alarming rate. But I have read HR 985 as listed, and I see nothing in it about "requiring a court to have a preponderance of evidence" or about "compelling federal executive branch employees to release any document." Regulations to protect whistleblowers are all that I see.

Where is the offending text in HR 985 (text follows)?

__________________________________

I think the offensive section may section 2 regarding 'covered person' not being required to disclose material except under a court order. Covered Person' would be Obama, and the courts, if really under his control, would never grant such an order of disclosure.

Let's face it, every piece of legislation coming out of this Congress is suspect, so I'm all for disallowing any new legislation from Congress until Obama is removed from office.

In fact, let's minimize the damage being done to America these days and just shut down Congress. What's the worst thing that can happen? No new laws to confine us or to tax us? Ooooo, that's too bad now, isn't it.

I noticed that the link to the latest WND article on this bill was blocked. Anyone notice?

Revealed: 'The Obama birth certificate protection act'?